After assessment of the long-standing conflict between Sacramento State’s president and the Faculty Senate’s executive committee, the Center of Collaborative Policy recommended ways to resolve the issue.

Last year, the conflict resulted in a vote of no confidence by the faculty of President Alexander Gonzalez. In an effort to move forward, faculty members and the administration enlisted the help of the Center for Collaborative Policy. The center works to assess conflict and devise strategies to overcome conflict through the use of collaborative strategies.

The center released a 40-page report, called the “Assessment Report of Governance, Culture, and Climate at California State University, Sacramento,” that identified internal and external factors that cause stress on campus. The assessment was written by Susan Sherry, executive director for the Center for Collaborative Policy, and David Booher, senior consultant for the Center for Collaborative Policy.

External factors cited in the assessment are: decreased public funding, increased competition for students among national, global, and in-state universities, public and governmental influences, and nationally stagnated salaries.

Sherry and Booher found that it was internal conflict that was responsible for creating tension between the two parties. The faculty members who were interviewed perceived the president as “demonstrating an overly directive and top-down approach to management,” and being “cool, detached, dismissive, disrespectful, and blaming” when dealing with faculty.

Administration and faculty, including some faculty senators who were interviewed, perceived the Faculty Senate as being “bogged down by minutiae, unprepared to address important issues, tardy in making decisions, and unsafe for the free expression of opinions opposed by some Senate members perceived to be powerful.”

The center interviewed 59 faculty and administration members to get a sense of what problems existed on campus.

The interviewees were selected based on various factors, including the opinion they held about the no-confidence vote, length of time at Sac State, ethnicity and engagement in campus administration.

The recommendations call for numerous changes to occur, beginning with the method in which administration and the faculty discuss problems. This will involve leadership and management-style training sessions.

James Sobredo, associate professor for the Ethnics Studies Department at Sac State and vice chair of the Faculty Senate, said the recommendations of the report were a necessary step.

“We need to find out what the problem is, acknowledge it, and work collaboratively at solving the problem,” Sobredo said. “I’d like to be part of an organization that is healthy.”

Bruce Bikle, criminal justice associate professor and chair of the Faculty Senate at Sac State, said both sides are committed to working on the problems of governance on campus.

“I think we would be remiss in our duties if we didn’t step forward and try this,” Bikle said. “There are no guarantees, but I am very optimistic that this will work and we can get back to the main goal, which is the success of the students.”

Gonzalez is also optimistic about the future of the relationship between his office and the Faculty Senate.

“I fully support the recommendations in the assessment report, and I look forward to working with the Faculty Senate as we face upcoming challenges,” Gonzalez said in an e-mail.

“I will continue to work tirelessly to achieve the goals set forth in Destination 2010 and the Strategic Plan and to lead this campus toward continued academic excellence. The Faculty Senate and the administration share the goal of establishing a new era of improved communication and governance.”

Sherry said Sac State administration and faculty have no tools in place to handle conflicts.

“There are many differences, contrary points of view and strong feelings, but no corresponding structures so that people can talk about these issues,” Sherry said.

The goal of the assessment and the resulting recommendations is to bring a better sense of unity and cooperation to administration and faculty. This will be accomplished through development of cooperative decision-making processes and formulation of a general plan for the future that is agreeable to all parties. The initial steps will likely be mediated by the center.

The recommendations aim to create a productive working relationship between faculty and administration to resolve governance issues at Sac State. This is a long-term project that is only now in its infancy, but Bikle can already see change.

“I’ve noticed a change in the tenor. Everyone realizes the stakes are too high to leave it to chance,” Bikle said. “We need to adapt to the environment, or we need to change it.”

The Faculty Senate has not had the opportunity to discuss the assessment officially. This will likely occur today at its meeting. The Faculty Senate will discuss the recommendations and vote as to whether it wishes to participate.

Gonzalez and Bikle released a joint statement to the campus community last week that said: “The Assessment Report has been referred to the Faculty Senate for their discussion and consideration. We look forward to this dialogue. If the Faculty Senate supports the recommendations, we will be moving forward to implement the recommendations of the report.”

Some of the changes mentioned in the assessment reach much further than dealing with conflict between faculty and administration. The assessment recommends involving students, staff and alumni in the process of deciding the future of the campus. This is to be accomplished through the formation of a team represented by all parties. This goal is in line with the Sac State Strategic Plan.

The center will continue its research this summer by interviewing students and staff members.

The report states that a team of students, staff, faculty and administrators should be formed to create a “Future of the University” document. The document will function like a mission statement, clearly laying out goals for the future. The assessment states that “this kind of engagement would provide opportunities and structures for discussions among and between students, staff, alumni, faculty and administrators.”

Derek Fleming can be reached at [email protected].